DOF - give give give me more more more more more (Wonderstuff in case you don't k...

Sponsored Links

30 Oct 2011 - 8:31 AM

• Options

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Sus

8

30 Oct 2011 - 8:34 AM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

Hang on, trying to fill in 2 things here, the above describes lighting on

http://www.ephotozine.com/photo/clean-spaniel-20565176

seen in unmodified (except resized) version here:



What aperture size should I be using to get it sharp all the way through (going for Tim Flasch really crisp look).

I have 2 speedlites, one was in a softbox, at the time the other had run out of batteries!

Sus

8

30 Oct 2011 - 9:50 AM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

I'd forgotten about that site! (and it has updated with all the latest camera makes, great!).

So this is becoming a bit clearer.

Using my 50mm, I was closer than 10-12 feet, lets say I was about 5-6 feet away - now that starts to explain the low DOF. At 5.5ft away f16 I get 1.1ft DOF.

Is that why you suggest using an 80mm - to get further away and more DOF? (Edit: just tested and only increasing distance with the same focal length lens gives greater DOF, makes no difference if you have to switch to a more telephoto lens).

However, even at 6ft, if I stop down to f8 I can get 2.11 ft of DOF.

In this situation, would you recommend my preferred choice of action would be to a) stop right down with the 50mm lens and increase ISO and flash power to compensate for light loss or b) try to increase my distance back, given that I can crop with the resolution on the 5DII?

That's a bit of a silly question isn't it? Sorry I'm just rambling a bit as I learn here, thanks for your input mikehit - I am going to try this! (Always been a bit nervous of upping the ISO too much but I had a canvas print of one of these done at ISO 640 and it was fine!)

Sus

8

30 Oct 2011 - 10:37 AM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

yes that's what I want!

I was shooting at f5.6, so f8 IS 'stopping down' for me! I don't think I'll need to go to f16, well I hope not...

User_Removed

3

30 Oct 2011 - 3:46 PM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

....having said that, to my eye, some of the very best dog "portraits" I have seen have had the eyes sharply in focus, the rest of the head reasonably in focus and a definite bokeh to the rest of the animal.

It's really all a matter of taste.




One of my labrador retrievers, Flight.

1/8 sec. f/4.5, ISO 250, focal length 70mm.

.

User_Removed

9

30 Oct 2011 - 5:18 PM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

I want to shout!

USE YOUR DOF PREVIEW BUTTON WHILE ADJUSTING THE APERTURE

NikLG

7

30 Oct 2011 - 6:22 PM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

nothing to add on the dof front, but kudos for the Wonderstuff quote.

mikehit (e2 Member)

3

31 Oct 2011 - 12:02 AM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

Quote: Using my 50mm, I was closer than 10-12 feet, lets say I was about 5-6 feet away - now that starts to explain the low DOF. At 5.5ft away f16 I get 1.1ft DOF.

Is that why you suggest using an 80mm - to get further away and more DOF? (Edit: just tested and only increasing distance with the same focal length lens gives greater DOF, makes no difference if you have to switch to a more telephoto lens).


The reason I mentioned 80mm was purely because that is a typical focal length for portraits and I assumed that is what you may be using.
With progressively shorter focal lengths you need to move closer to achieve the same framing but as you do so, you increase the risk of distorting perpective of the facial features (for example the 'bulging nose' effect seen when you use a wide angle close up). This may not be obivous when you avhe the head in focus and body OOF, but if you plan to have the body in focus, any 'incorrect perspective' may become more important because the apparent proportions of head size to body length may 'just look wrong'. It is all personal preference so play around with distance (and thereby focal length) and see which you prefer.